Democracy: Tricking the Profoundly Gullible

A lot of people, often as children, have tried their hand at magic. When I was younger I learned some tricks and illusions that would baffle at least 95% of the general public (which is no great accomplishment). These days, every once in a while I can figure out how professional magicians do what they do, but I’m still stumped pretty often.

Now imagine the world’s worst magician. He brings a top hat on stage, carrying it upside-down like a bowl. He tells you it’s empty, but he won’t let you see inside it. He says you should just take his word for it. Then he pulls out a rabbit and says, “Presto!” Would you be impressed? And what would you think of anyone who was impressed by such a pathetic “trick”?

Well, that’s exactly how I feel about anyone who still votes in presidential elections. Really, people, how transparently bogus does it have to get before you stop falling for it? It’s embarrassing to have to explain stuff that should be patently obvious to anyone with a brain. “The rabbit was already in the hat when he came out.” And… “When those in power pre-select the candidates, that’s not you choosing anything.”

If a few years ago someone did a poll asking people who—of anyone in the world—they would want to be President, approximately zero percent would have said “Hillary Clinton” and approximately zero percent would have said “Donald Trump.” Anyone with the tiniest shred of intellectual honesty would admit this. There was no grassroots movement or actual public enthusiasm to put either of those narcissistic megalomaniacs into power. None. Yet here we are, and a country full of duped sheep are bickering over which of those two candidates—whom nobody would have chosen to begin with—is going to wield nearly unlimited power. And people still take elections seriously? Still talk as if "your vote is your voice"? Really?

This upcoming election might be an especially embarrassing spectacle, but the principle has been true of every election in your lifetime. Was there a public uproar to have Bill Clinton run for President? Nope. How about Bush (either one)? Nope. Barrack Obama? No. Initially there was zero public demand for any of them to be put into power. In fact, only a trivial percentage of the population would have even recognized any of those names before the establishment decided to parade them out before the masses as potential candidates.

To think that the people are choosing anything is just profoundly stupid. It’s like a magician holding up only two cards, and when you pick one, he “magically” knows what it is. Gee, that wasn’t rigged at all, huh? After all, you were free to choose any card you wanted (any of the two the con artist offered, that is). Yet somehow it was like the guy knew and controlled the outcome! Wow! Amazing! (Duh.)

I don’t know a nice way to say this—and in fact, I think we’re well beyond the point where we should be nice to people falling for this inane bullshit: if you vote for Hillary or Trump, you’re just an idiot. As an extreme analogy, I used to ask people if they would still vote, and still think their vote mattered, if the two choices were Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. Little did I know that my outlandish analogy would eventually stop being hypothetical. Right now the choice is between Hitler and Stalin (under different names), and most of the future victims of this ridiculous atrocity are still playing the damn game, and acting like it’s legitimate and important.

“But we have to make sure that theotherguy doesn’t get into power!”

If you’ve made that argument, then you’ve proven that all your oppressors need to do to keep you perpetually enslaved—and perpetually acting as an accomplice to your own enslavement—is to keep giving you two horrendously intolerable “choices.” As long as they do that, you will keep playing the game, and will keep legitimizing and advocating the violent subjugation of several hundred million people, including you.

Seriously. Hillary? And Trump? Even when those are the choices the establishment gives you, many still fall for the most transparently bogus trick imaginable. Yes, most Americans really are that gullible, that they will still participate in the stupid circus, still watch the absurd spectacle, and still think and act as if it matters. They still imagine that they have some say in the outcome. Good grief, people! If you want to hang on to a shred of dignity or self-respect, stop allowing yourselves to be manipulated and exploited so damn easily!

If a guy showed up at your front door and asked you to choose between being punched in the face or kicked in the groin, would you proudly “participate in the process”? Would you think he was “representing” you as he inflicted upon you whichever act of violence you chose? Would you feel empowered and in charge while casting your vote? Would you tell your neighbor, “Hey, if you don’t choose between being punched in the face or kicked in the crotch, then you have no right to complain about the outcome!”? Would you pontificate about how this is what makes your neighborhood great—because you have a “choice”? Would you opine that, “The system isn’t perfect, but it’s the best there is!”?

No? Then why the hell would you have those responses to a ruling class letting you “choose” between having a left jackboot or a right jackboot on your throat?

~ ~ * ~ ~

“But what about Gary Johnson?”

Sorry, but now it’s time to poop on the parade of those people silly enough to think they can somehow game the gamers, that they can somehow magically co-opt the system and the process to achieve freedom—those who think that if only we can get a third jester into the show, everything will be different!

When the magician is trying his two-card trick on you, he controls the outcome. Don’t bother trying to hijack the trick. It won’t work.

Johnsonite: “Oh yeah, Mr. Magician? Well I brought my own card, and I pick this one!”
Magician: “Nice joker. But that’s not one of the choices.”
Johnsonite: “Well I say it is!”
Magician: “Well I’m running the trick, and I say it’s not. You lose.”

Setting aside the fact that Gary Johnson is an unprincipled statist buffoon who “spreads the libertarian message” about as well as turtles explain calculus, and setting aside that no, a President cannot unilaterally create or repeal any act of legislation or disband any federal agency or department, there’s also the tiny little fact that…

GARY JOHNSON CAN’T WIN

No, really. He can’t. And won’t. No matter what. “But if we all campaign real hard….” No, not even then. “Okay, it might be a long shot, but there’s always a chance…” No, there isn’t. None. Stop lying to yourself. It only wastes your time and energy (and possibly money) and makes the-powers-that-be laugh at your pathetic and impotent efforts.

This is a system of the ruling class, by the ruling class, and for the ruling class. They have all manner of redundant systems to make sure that their puppets win. Always. Forever. They control the media. They control the voting process. And if propaganda, slander, vote rigging and tampering, censorship, or even outright assassination, ever failed to keep an actual outsider out of the game (no, Trump is not an outsider; duh), then most of the country would suddenly learn a tiny little detail about Constitutional law that they’ve never heard before:

THE PEOPLE DON’T ELECT THE PRESIDENT

Look it up. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find any mention of the public electing the President. The state legislatures appoint the electors who choose the President. Currently the various states put on a show of asking the public who they want, but on a whim they could end that in a heartbeat and appoint whoever the hell they choose, and there isn’t a damn thing anyone could do about it. (See Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.)

This means that if by some miracle someone who actually posed a threat to the status quo ever made it that far, the state legislatures—controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties—would suddenly say it’s an emergency and totally ignore the will of the people. And it would be completely “legal” and constitutional. (Everyone who complains about the Supreme Court “stealing the election” from Al Gore needs to read the Constitution. The Florida legislature didn’t need anyone’s permission or approval to appoint whatever electors they wanted.)

At this point, those who have become psychologically invested in “participating in the process” will start to have tantrums, and say things like, “So you just want to do nothing?” or “At least I’m trying to improve things!” or “How will not voting fix anything?” So glad you asked.

1 - While I don’t suggest “doing nothing,” that would still be an improvement over voting. Voting is doing less than nothing. While having zero chance of achieving freedom, it empowers and legitimizes the system and the process whereby the parasites violently dominate everyone else, while pretending to “represent” you, and pretending they're doing so with your “consent.” They need the slaves to vote to sell that lie.

2 - Trying really, really hard at something that has absolutely no chance of success doesn’t make you smart or noble. It makes you a dupe. The entire system is specifically designed to use up people’s time, energy and money, keeping them continually bashing their heads against a brick wall, playing a hopeless game that the tyrants will always win.

3 - To use an analogy, if you had a headache, you shouldn’t try to cure it by hitting your toe with a hammer. If someone explained that to you, it would be remarkably stupid for you to then say, “But how will not hitting my toe with a hammer fix my headache?” Similarly, refraining from voting, in and of itself, won’t fix the world. It would, however, stop you from making the situation even worse.

SO WHATWOULDCREATE FREEDOM?

The road to freedom runs in the exact opposite direction from petitioning, campaigning and voting. It starts with people giving up the silly notion that constitutions, elections, or anything else can give someone the right to rule them. If you don’t understand that yet, you’re not even free in mind, and therefore have no chance of being free in body. As long as you’re begging the masters for legislative permission to be free, it means you think that it’s their choice whether you should be free or not. And that makes you a slave, regardless of how nice or nasty your owners choose to be towards you.

There is one road to freedom, and it happens when enough people disobey and resist the parasites who claim to have the right to rule. It might be a few people here and there quietly finding ways to live outside of the reach and control of the tentacles of the state. It might be many thousands of people openly and forcibly resisting state aggression. Ultimately, when enough people have given up the superstition of “authority,” the biggest tyranny in the world can simply be ignored out of existence. When the people as a whole stop believing that gangs of crooks in suits have the moral right to rule, that is the end of ruling classes.

But the first step is for people to stop asking tyrants for freedom, and stop hallucinating legitimacy to the gang of thieves and thugs who call their violence “law” and “taxation.” If you’re still voting, it means you haven’t even made that first step yet. And if you’re still voting in this Presidential election, it means you’re about as gullible and naive as a human being can possibly be.

(P.S. Feel free to share this article anywhere you see Stockholm Syndrome statists extolling the virtues of choosing a new slavemaster.)

What if we actually voted for "no rulers"? Wouldn't that help free more minds than just not voting at all? It's like standing up in front of the audience and telling the magician you won't pick any of his cards because the game is rigged. Couldn't that be more effective for freedom than just sitting in the crowd and not playing the rigged game?

Larken, you know I love your stuff, but when I share it with some off my friends (and yes, those friends do suffer from some Stockholm Syndrome), they see stuff like this and write you off as ridiculous:

Right now the choice is between Hitler and Stalin

You see things very black and white, but grey exists. Trump or Hillary will contribute to democide, but on orders of magnitude less than Hitler or Stalin. To suggest otherwise is stupid.

Your style of writing here is effective (and profitable) with those who already agree with you, but others don't take to being called "idiots" very well. You're probably familiar with the psychological effects at work here and how much of someone's identity is wrapped up in their political philosophy. Pushing hard against it causes them to dig in deeper, making the job of freeing minds that much harder.

But I get it, and I know you've been freeing minds for a very long time. My opinion may not be well grounded. You have more experience, and you know what works for a very large number of people. They like emotionally charged, hyperbolic statements, not facts supported by reasonable statements and empirical evidence. Politician's understand this all too well.

I'm hopeful for The Mirror because I don't think it will call the people you're trying to free idiots or use irrational hyperbolic comparisons or analogies.

Much love, Larken. I'm a big fan which is why I push back so often. The last thing you want are mindless Larkenites who agree with everything you say just because you said it. :)

Different people respond differently to different approaches. So I'm glad when other people do it a different way. However, there is a method to my madness. For example, most voters by now already feel pretty ashamed of who they are voting FOR, and the excuse they give is how bad the one they're voting AGAINST is. Guilt-tripping and ridiculing people who already, deep down inside, KNOW they're doing something stupid and bogus, can actually be effective. But again, I'm always happy to see other people trying to spread the ideas of self-ownership and non-aggression however they see fit.

(As for me comparing Hillary and Trump to Stalin and Hitler, it's because ideologically, and in personalities and mentalities, it's a pretty close match. No, there aren't similar body counts ... yet. But neither of them have been on the throne yet, either.)

If they are on the throne during a nuclear WWIII, history may agree with your comparison. Guilt tripping is powerful, but it's the tool of religious and political dogma, IMO. Lies and propaganda can also be exposed without guilt. Thanks for the reply.

For funizes, here's an example of the type of comments I get from my more philosophically minded friends when I share your stuff:

This may be a horrible comparison, but on an intellectual-rational-conversation level, (to me) Larken comes across as the "Ray Comfort" of Anarchism; not interested in real dialogue, understanding of the issues from various perspectives, critically analyzing one's own tenets of faith, etc. Rather, just more dogma repackaged in new mantras, easy to digest for the faithful to reinforce and regurgitate the same message without really examining it.

After looking at a bunch of Larken's stuff, that was my conclusion. I hope to be surprised by him in the future, but we all have our priorities in life, and I respect him for pursuing his own.

Take it for what you will. :)

Whenever we put our ideas out there we'll gather critics. At least it means people are giving up some attention to hear us out.

I don't know who wrote it, so this might be an unfair impression, but since we're trading impressions...

He sounds like one of those libertarian eggheads who is more concerned with being in the "cool" and "informed" MINORITY, so they can look down their noses at everyone else, while converting exactly NONE of the general public to the concepts of self-ownership and non-aggression. Yes, I keep the concepts simple, and write in terms that anyone can understand. This is because the FUTURE OF THE FUCKING WORLD depends on getting enough people to give up their statism, and it takes something other than thousand-page treatises on Austrian economics to do that.

Oops, I forgot to answer your first question. To participate in their stupid ritual at all, even to vote for no one, is to give credibility and legitimacy to it. If the Mafia had an election, would you go and vote, just to tell them you don't want a Mafia? I wouldn't.

I understand this, but many others do not. They look at every government on the planet as "normal" and your Mafia comparison as ridiculous, confirming their bias and decision to tune you and others out as being unrealistic.

If the Mafia was the norm everywhere, then yes, I might stand up and make a statement with "no rulers." It sends a message. Not voting also sends a message but the response is different and goes something like, "We need to have more celebrities encourage people to vote! Look at all this voter apathy!"

Voting "no rulers" doesn't show apathy.

I'd love to live in a world with no violence where everyone followed the NAP. Meanwhile, in the real world, I have to take practical steps to defend myself. Maybe tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people voting "no rulers" could be a similar practical step? It's significantly different than voting for none of the above which implies a differently ruler would be okay.

While I agree with much of what you say, I find little value in abstinence. Why is abstinence of higher value than registering a vote for someone like Darryl Perry who would see government as it exists today abolished?

By the same token, not voting gets you NO chance of obtaining anything you want either. It's a given that no 3rd party candidate will win but at least by registering an additional tick by one of their names you're recording your discontent for all to see. By not voting nobody is going to know you're taking a stance against the system or just being lazy. There's a candidate out there represents almost every possible political stance that exists. Why not bring attention to one of them? Even writing in Mickey Mouse is far more constructive than not voting at all. It at least makes an explicit statement about what you're trying to convey.

I agree that it's certainly not the only way to get something. However, if you're trying to make a statement by not voting, your statement gets lost in the noise. If it were not for your enlightening article, how would I know that one less voter this election season was making such a statement? I wouldn't. Most non-voters abstain for other far more trivial reasons. If however I saw one additional vote for Mickey Mouse it would bring explicit attention to your statement.

Voting for Mickey Mouse isn't begging the system to let me be free because I know without a shadow of a doubt that Mickey Mouse stands no chance to win. All it does is make obvious the fact that I'm pointing my middle finger at the system.

Not voting is not about making a statement, it's about a refusal to give the system any legitimacy. Statist keep saying that government rules by the consent of the governed. Voting is consent, not voting is denial of consent. If everyone stopped voting, for whatever reason, they couldn't possibly prentend to have the consent of the governed, could they?

That is what not voting is all about. Even if you are voting for Bozo the clown, you are still participating in the process and giving consent to be governed. I for one will do no such thing.

"Not voting is a statement."
A statement which nearly half of Americans make every election year, and one which Republicans at least view as a statement in support of them, as outlined here.

Voting 3rd party, even if your candidate is destined to lose, does have an effect on the elections and behaviors, though. Because in an attempt to win your vote next election season, the parties move towards the largest 3rd party votes. Example, Ron Paul last election had a huge following and many of those who supported him voted third-party when he wasn't nominated. One of his largest platforms was being an outsider who would affect real change. Look at the platforms of candidates this election cycle. Trump and Sanders both ran on a similar platform looking to gather the vote of Paul supporters from the year before. It's almost like third party votes act as a feedback mechanism, eh?

I would take monarchy over democracy any day of the week. You can fool an idiot in power but you can never beat mass stupidity

Yep. If you want to make statists wet themselves, point out that democratically-elected constitutional republics have committed more oppression and murder than any other type of institution in the history of the world, including emperors and kings.

The vast majority of people live in the Matrix - an alternative mass-servitude reality that was created for them by the elites. The masses believe that they have been given a choice but they haven't- it's just an illusion. The media fine-tunes the program and keeps them dumbed down and distracted with non-issues and the psychopaths keep pulling the strings.

People are waking up, albeit slowly. We need to keep all that we can to educate them and wake them up - post like yours help that cause. Good job and thank you!

The Best Vote is NOT to Vote. Not voting is a movement of saying "I am TIRED OF THIS SHIT!" Did you know they do not sign to protect the constitution anymore? They sign a contract to be a leader of the corporational government that is in place now. If you search what I just said then you will find.

Good job Larken. Well said. Mind if I use this as a script for a video? You'll definitely get credit in the description with a link to your channel and a link to your Steemit blog. upovoted! Also, I'd like to arrange an interview with you on my channel and introduce you to my audience of almost a quarter million YT subscribers. You game?

I'm in agreement with most of what you say. I think the road to freedom involves disobeying and resisting but can also be achieved by COMING TOGETHER in that disobedience. "The power is in the proles." To bring the masses around to your/my of thinking, we must first get them to see things as they really are. Which I believe your work aims to do. Usually people have to have their asses handed to them in tangible reality in order to awake. On a side note, have you seen the videos of the Prez debate pointing out collusion b/w Hillary and Holt? Sleight of hand right there. Hidden in plain sight.

Yes, I saw that video. I find it amusing, and not at all upsetting. That's the same way I feel about "Watergate." Nixon oversaw mass murder in Vietnam, but he was reviled and scorned out of office for .......... spying on OTHER crooks? If the two parties had a freaking shootout in DC, I wouldn't care, as long as no bystanders were hit. So crooks cheating crooks is low on my list of concerns.

Long time ago there was a fairytale I vaguely remember, about a man having... something, a ghost or some other malevolent creature, and each active attempt at getting rid of it only resulted in it getting stronger. Apparently the only way to really fight the parasite was to starve it to death - no attention given, no energy given, let it wither... The point is that fighting the system means still being a part of the system. The system expects to be fought, it is prepared for it and it even needs to be fought, because it does need enemies. Enemies are useful after all, they justify deeds that would otherwise be unthinkable. Sometimes it is even necessary to create enemies if there are no volunteers.
So, I wholeheartedly agree with "ignore it out of existence", by rising above it and possibly avoiding getting into any kind of relationship with it, even violent one :)

You can't "starve" the system as long as you pay your taxes, water bill, etc. This makes no sense.

Women and blacks did not get the right to vote by staying home. As long as the oligarchy can make money off you (which they can do even if you are in prison), they would prefer that if you're not voting for one of their handpicked candidates, you stay home. That's why one of the polls that the debate commission used to determine who got to join the debate simply left out millennials as "N/A," and why Clinton is talking about some kind of "service" program for millennials. About 30% of us are for third parties. That 30% staying home is their ideal scenario.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Yep. That's right. I have never voted for exactly the same reason as you described. Nice clear style, good comparisons. Only it isn’t obvious what to do. How is it to disobey? For instance, I wish I wouldn’t have to pay taxes, but I could be put in prison for that. I am not a hero, sadly. But here is my upvote.

This what I love about steem, even more than getting paid I think. Others , such as yourself, who are awake, disillusioned, and ultimately pissed off at the force fed crap we get given by those that think they have the divine right of kings to rule over us. Its just like income tax, why do they think they have claim to the fruits of YOUR labor. Even in their crap system income tax isn't a real law, but I digress. Thank you for the post.

Johnson is a doof who apparently doesn't know what Aleppo is or who any world leaders are and thinks climate change is a joke, but I do think voting for Jill Stein makes a more definitive statement than voting for nobody (not voting doesn't send any message at all, because people can interpret why you didn't vote however they like; meanwhile, if the public actually elected a third party and that was overruled, it would bring us closer to rebellion and revolution; third, when a third party gets 5% they get 20 million next election in federal funding, which is great for a party like the Green Party who actively participates in working for ranked choice voting, protesting the debates, calling out the system on its corruption, etc.). Silence sends no message (unless every American stayed home on voting day, which is impossible), as the fact that only ~50% of Americans vote and the government gives zero fucks about that shows. Voting for a system outsider is against their desires, which is why there are tons of articles going out of their way to smear Stein and the last time Jill Stein protested the closed debates they handcuffed her to a chair for eight hours.

That said, voting isn't going to fix things. I agree.

So now that we're on the same page about how corrupt our government is, do you have concrete suggestions about how to get this revolution going? Obviously we have to spread ideas and create more solidarity. But what's the best way to get a movement going? And where? Online? In one's neighborhood/city? What kind of ideas can everyone get behind in terms of changing the system? It's important to call it out and awaken awareness, but a lot of the time that just creates a feeling of hopelessness, like I addressed in my article. We have to go further and specifically figure out what we're going to do about it. (And I think calling people sheep or idiots or whatever is hardly going to help. Like I discuss in my article, people aren't exactly stupid so much as undergoing psychological issues. "Stockholm Syndrome" may indeed be part of it.)

I personally don't think it's possible to get a revolution going in the current climate. The general public is too content with the way things are and oblivious to the fact that there are actually better options out there for themselves. Contrary to what they say, they also actually enjoy the circus that's currently playing itself out. If they didn't, it wouldn't exist. Until something jarring knocks them off their couches and makes life unbearably uncomfortable, they'll continue living and voting as they do today. A revolution requires that the masses be unhappy. As long as beer, sports, tv, pretend news, and an imaginary presidential "election" exists that gives them the illusion that they're making a difference in the world, it's all going to stay the same.

I don't think you should feel hopeless though. You've obviously already revolted and in the end that's all that really matters. American society has this unfortunate belief that everything sucks if you're not on the same winning team as everyone else. Why do we have to feel that way? We should be happy that we're on our own team by ourselves and are doing what we believe is right for ourselves. We've no control over other people and trying to change all of their minds is futile. Throwing our hands up in the air and voting for the lesser of two evils or not voting at all is silly and causes harm to our own personal cause. Even if you believe government shouldn't exist, there's a candidate out there that represents that belief! Vote for that candidate and be happy you did everything you could. Let your conversations with others in the real world and on forums like this rub off on someone who may be on the fence. Let them see that after all the votes are tallied that there are a small number of folks out there that can think and act for themselves whom aren't afraid to break away from the pack and vote independently. Maybe that'll change a mind or two as well. But in the end, just be happy you were honest and true to yourself in your actions.

A way must be found, by which to withdraw one's Consent to "their" governance. As you probably realise, there is no formal mechanism by which a man may refuse his Consent to "their" governance.

Myself, I have refused to be Registered as an elector ... both verbally (in person) and in writing. Now, in the UK, this is supposedly an Offence, punishable by both fine and imprisonment. As yet, I remain at large.

It's easier for the system to ignore me, than to admit that my Consent to their governance is not required. They'd have to admit to this in open Court, were they to pursue me. As I say, one man may be written off as a "crazy".

If a few thousand were to follow this course of action, and actively refuse their Consent, then the State would be faced with a crisis. It would have to be done publicly, and loudly. It'd be a simple matter to show that a man who is governed in the absence of his Consent, is a man who is the property of the State.